Overview
Figure 3 was created to provide a visual representation of the key components for this study. The figure displays the primary premise for the study, which is the
intervention designed to improve letter-name knowledge skills. The figure then denotes the number of walkthroughs that each individual participant teacher received over the 10-week period as well as the number of Istation® assessment data collection points. Finally, the diagram indicated the initial professional development session that both participants attended and the randomized letter matrices that each participant teacher received for the intervention cycle.
Figure 3. Overview of the study. This figure is an overview of the main components utilized for this study.
This mixed methods study addresses the problem of kindergarten students’ low performance on the task of correctly identifying letters of the alphabet. This skill is critical in the process of learning to read and is a key predictor of future reading success. In this study, classroom observations were conducted weekly with the two participant kindergarten teachers during the 10-week treatment period. Observations were utilized to determine intervention consistency and to ensure fidelity in the implementation of the treatment. Fidelity entailed participant teachers adhering to the 5-minute time
requirement for the intervention. The Istation® Literacy Screener was administered to kindergarten students at the beginning, middle, and end of the treatment to track student progress in the area of letter-name knowledge. The 2 participant kindergarten teachers
Letter Name
Knowledge (1)
Professional
Development (1)
Letter Identification
Matrices (10)
Classroom
Observations (10)
iStation Literacy
Screener
Monitoring Data (3)
73
received an initial professional development opportunity to instruct them on proper implementation of the intervention.
Medlock and Raven participated in the professional development session
together. Professional development has been defined as a combination of “processes and activities designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of
educators so that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students” (Guskey, 2000, p. 16). Therefore, the goal of this training was to fill the gap between what the participant teachers knew and what they needed to know. The training design provided the
instructional objective for conducting this study, a thorough overview of the intervention, and explicit modeling designed to provide systematic intervention
expectations. The session was approximately 2 hours in length and transpired at the end of a school day in early February 2017. The session began with an overview on the importance of student automaticity in letter naming so that the two teachers would understand the importance of this prerequisite early reading skill and what some of the research indicated. The intervention was then described in detail to Medlock and Raven to provide a comprehensive overview of the treatment. Next, I modeled the intervention to both teachers in its entirety, taking the role of the instructor, and Medlock and Raven engaged as students. This exercise provided participants with the essential components of the intervention and acclimated the teachers to what students would experience. Subsequently, Medlock and Raven were provided opportunities to model the
intervention, in front of the group, in order to eliminate any potential hesitancy regarding implementation. The final component was an indepth discussion regarding what fidelity
74
of treatment encompassed. Fidelity of treatment for this intervention was described to Medlock and Raven as a minimum of 5 minutes in length with one minute designated for the teacher objective script. The professional development session provided participant teachers with the weekly rapid letter randomized naming serial formatted matrices that were utilized with students throughout the 10-week treatment period as well as
classroom delivery instructions. Participant kindergarten teachers were required to utilize the non-sequential letter practice with students for 5 minutes daily for a total of 10 weeks. Observations after the conclusion of the intervention continued for 4 weeks to determine whether instructional practices in letter knowledge improved as a result of having participated. A post-intervention interview was conducted with both Medlock and Raven to gather their input regarding the intervention.
Statement Regarding Human Subjects and the Institutional Review Board In Spring 2016, a proposal to the IRB was submitted in order to request
exemption from full review. IRB exemption was requested as although human subjects were involved in this study, it met the guidelines for a quality improvement project as define by the TAMU IRB. Much care and concern was undertaken to ensure the utilization of practices that maximized privacy and minimized potential risk to
participants. In May 2016, I received notification from the IRB that this study met the guidelines for quality improvement projects and therefore, exemption from full review was granted (Appendix F).
75 Goals, Objectives, and Activities
Table 3 lists the goal, objectives, and activities established for this problem of practice. The goal of the study was to increase kindergarten participants’ letter naming abilities after participation in a 10-week letter naming intervention. The table then outlines two objectives that connect to the primary goal for the study. Objective A provided participant kindergarten teachers with an initial professional development session designed to train them to properly administer the intervention. Objective B aimed at ensuring kindergarten students received the intervention for 5-minutes daily for a time period of 10-weeks. The activities are outlined in order to specifically meet the needs of each objective. Activity 1 discussed teachers’ ability to implement the intervention after participation in the professional development session. Activity 2 discussed the weekly teacher observations that would ensure the fidelity of the
intervention implementation. Therefore, table 3 demonstrates the relationship between the study’s goals, objectives, and activities.
Table 3
Goals, Objectives, and Activities Associated with the Problem Solution
Goal Objective Activity
I. To increase the kindergarten
participant students’ letter-naming abilities after daily practice with non- sequential letter fluency practice for a 10-week implementation period. A. To provide the participant kindergarten teachers with a professional development session that modeled the letter-naming intervention and provided background information regarding this critical precursory literacy skill in order to facilitate the non- sequential letter- name intervention. B. To provide participant
kindergarten students with daily non- sequential letter fluency practice for a time period of 5 minutes over a 10- week period in order to increase fluency in letter-naming.
1. Participant kindergarten
teachers utilized the knowledge gained from the
professional development session to
implement the non- sequential letter- naming fluency intervention for 5 minutes daily with participant
kindergarten students for a total of 10-weeks. 2. Teacher
observations were conducted during and after the
intervention cycle in order to verify the execution of the intervention.
77 Sampling Design
Overview. Two kindergarten classes were involved in the study with a total of 47 students, 23 and 24 students in each kindergarten classroom. A non-participating kindergarten classroom with 21 students from the same campus was utilized as the control. The control group received traditional instructional delivery in the area of letter-name knowledge, while the participant classes utilized weekly non-sequential serial letter matrices. There are three total kindergarten classrooms at Lancaster Elementary School. These classes were selected for the study because my office was located on this campus. Therefore, the location provided convenience and accessibility to the participant kindergarten classrooms.
Participants
Students. Sixty-eight kindergarten students were utilized from three
kindergarten classrooms located at Lancaster Elementary School in Lancaster ISD. A convenience sample was utilized for this study. Lancaster Elementary School is located on the south central sector of the city of Lancaster and was originally built in 1989 as Lancaster Junior High School. The school remained a junior high until 2006, when it was transformed into an elementary campus that housed prekindergarten through 5th grade students. The final elementary school year for this campus was the 2016-17 school year. For the 2017-18 school year, Lancaster Elementary students transitioned, just a few miles away, to a newly opened elementary school called West Main
Elementary, where they will remain. The building where Lancaster Elementary was located is transitioning, yet again, and will officially become a 9th grade campus for the
2018-19 school year. Eighty-nine percent of the Lancaster Elementary students were considered economically disadvantaged; 79% were African American, 17% Hispanic, and 3% White. The city of Lancaster, Texas has a population that is comprised of approximately 69% African American, 20% Hispanic, and 13% White (General Information, 2010).
Teachers. Medlock and Raven were the 2 selected participant kindergarten teachers from Lancaster Elementary School. This was Medlock’s second year and Raven’s fifth year teaching kindergarten. The control teacher, Millner, had 15 years of experience teaching students in several different elementary grade levels. The 2 teachers with the least classroom experience were selected as the participant teachers particularly because of their kindergarten experience. Consequently, I had stronger working
relationships with both Medlock and Raven and had worked closely with both since they began in the district in my capacity as an Early Childhood Literacy Specialist. I did not have a relationship with Millner and had not worked with her in any capacity previously. I believed that both participant teachers would be willing and able to participate in this study based on my work interactions and experiences with them. Each participant teacher experienced an initial professional development session designed to instruct on effective administration of the intervention treatment for students.
Procedure. The 2 participant kindergarten teachers selected for this study located at Lancaster Elementary School received an initial professional development opportunity in February 2016 which prepared them to properly administer the treatment intervention. The control kindergarten teacher, also located at Lancaster Elementary,
79
was utilized in order to have a comparison analysis of students exposed only to
traditional letter knowledge instruction. The professional development session supplied them with the weekly serial randomized letter fluency matrices and a student learning objective teacher script (Appendix H) that they utilized daily with their kindergarten students for the entirety of the treatment period. Participant teachers practiced the serial randomized letter matrix with their students for 5 minutes daily for a period of 10 weeks. A total of 10 matrices were utilized during the intervention period; one per week
(Appendices J-S). The participant teachers were observed once each week using the Classroom Observation Rubric (Appendix G) to ensure that the treatment was provided to students with daily consistency. The weekly observations ensured that participant kindergarten teachers were providing a minimum of 5 minutes of daily non-sequential letter practice with the serial randomized letter matrix. The randomized letter matrices were comprised of 110 upper and lowercase letters in a randomized order with 11 letters in each row with a total of 10 rows printed on 18” x 24” inch poster-size. KG Miss Kindergarten font was utilized for each matrix with a 30-point letter size. This front was selected based on its large easy-to-read manuscript akin print. The randomized letter fluency practice was provided to participant kindergarten students in a whole group setting. Teachers were not required to follow the teacher script verbatim. The script was provided as a mechanism to initially acclimate teachers with the intervention. The observation instrument was a rubric that measured the following elements: timeframe, learning objective, and student engagement. The observation rubric was not intended as an evaluative tool, but as an anecdotal record-keeping device to substantiate the
consistency/fidelity of the interventions. If participating teachers did not adhere to the daily letter fluency practice for the specified 5-minute time period, then observations would have been increased to biweekly. An additional teacher training session would have been provided to a teacher found not adhering to the daily specified timeframe after documented biweekly observations. The observations would have then increased to three times per week for noncompliance and another teacher training session would have been added if a teacher failed to integrate the required 5-minute randomized letter
treatment as prescribed after biweekly observations documented the lack of fidelity in participation. However, neither Medlock nor Raven deviated from the time requirement based on weekly classroom observations; therefore, observations remained once weekly throughout the implementation period of the study.
Guiding questions. The primary guiding question for this study queries whether a specifically designed systematic letter-naming intervention will be effective in
addressing letter knowledge deficiencies for kindergarten students. More specifically: Can the percentage of kindergarten students score on grade level in letter identification increase significantly with consistent daily non-sequential upper and lowercase letter practice when compared to a control group with traditional curriculum?
List of Questions Before, During, and After the Proposed Intervention (Before):
1. (QUAN) How well did kindergarten students in Medlock and Raven’s classes perform on the Istation® Literacy Screener before the intervention treatment period when compared to the control group, Millner’s class?
81 (During):
2. (QUAN) How well did kindergarten students in Medlock and Raven’s classes perform on the Istation® Literacy Screener during the intervention treatment period when compared to the control group, Millner’s class?
3. (QUAL) Were the teachers delivering the intervention with fidelity during the intervention treatment period?
(After):
4. (QUAN) How well did kindergarten students in Medlock and Raven’s classes perform on the Istation® Literacy Screener after the intervention treatment period when compared to the control group, Millner’s class?
5. (QUAL) How have teachers’ instructional delivery in letter-naming improved as a result of having participated in this study?
Data collection. Students’ Istation® Literacy Screener Scores from both
treatment and control groups were collected before implementation of the intervention in order to determine students’ proficiency in letter knowledge prior to introduction of the intervention. All kindergarten students were assessed using the Istation® Literacy Screen in January 2017, and those assessment reports were accessible through the Istation® website using the administrator district-level login information.
During the implementation phase of the study, the data sources consisted of students’ Istation® Literacy Screener Scores during the treatment administration as well as classroom observation data to ensure the consistency, appropriacy, and adequacy with which the intervention was delivered to students. Kindergarten student participants were
assessed a second time in March 2017, during the course of the intervention, and those assessment reports for letter knowledge upon completion were accessed through the Istation® website. The students’ quantitative Istation® Scores on the subtest of Letter Knowledge were analyzed to determine student growth in the area of letter knowledge. Student assessment data were analyzed to determine levels of progress based on
intervention treatment compared to the traditional curriculum group. The qualitative classroom observation data were disaggregated to determine if teachers were delivering non-sequential letter instruction as instructed based on the teachers’ professional development training session.
After completion of the study, the data sources consisted of students’ Istation® Literacy Screener Scores following completion of the 10-week intervention treatment in addition to control group data. Kindergarten student participants were assessed for a third time in May 2017 using the Istation® Literacy Screen Assessment, and assessment reports for the subtest of letter knowledge were accessed through the Istation® website. The students’ quantitative Istation® Scores on the subtest of Letter Knowledge
following the treatment timeframe were analyzed to determine the level of student growth compared with the traditional curriculum group. The qualitative classroom observation data were utilized to ensure teacher consistency/fidelity and integration of the intervention with students for the required daily 5-minute time period. Teachers continued to receive classroom observations for 4 weeks following the conclusion of the intervention to track teacher progress in letter knowledge instruction. This qualitative data was analyzed to answer guiding questions for the study.
83
Procedure for Professional Development and Teacher Observation
Protocols and instruments. Participant teachers received weekly observations to ensure that the intervention treatment was delivered for the required 5-minute
timeframe to participant students for a total of 10 weeks; therefore, a total of 20 observations were conducted over the course of the implementation. A classroom observation rubric was created in order to document the most critical elements of the intervention: timeframe, objective, and student engagement (Appendix G). The
timeframe component on the rubric had a scale from 1 to 5 with the numbers equating to the number of minutes that the intervention lasted during the recorded observation. The objective area of the rubric was scored as either a 1 or a 5 with the number 5 indicating that the teacher discussed the objective for the intervention with students and a 1 indicating that she did not discuss the objective for the intervention with students. The objective was deemed to be one of the observation criteria in order to be a consistent reminder to students about why they need to engage with the letter intervention. The hope was that the objective would aid in maintaining student engagement as students began to understand the importance behind learning the letter names. Student
engagement was the final component of the observation rubric and the scale ranged from 1 to 5 with a 5 being the highest level of student engagement between 85%-100%. Student engagement, for purposes of this study, was defined as students looking at the letter matrix while saying the names of the letters chorally with their classmates. Twenty classroom observations were video-recorded so that observations could be referenced as needed.
Analysis of data. The present study did not utilize qualitative analysis software for coding purposes. Software systems designed to aid researchers in analyzing
qualitative data are becoming more prevalent. These systems provide efficiency for handling large data sets for qualitative research purposes (Andrew & Peter, 2007). However, critics argue that there is no substitute for traditional qualitative
methodologies such as hierarchical coding. The belief is that qualitative data software cannot attempt to address the ambiguities present in social interaction and/or context- dependent meaning sets (Prein et al., 1995; Dohan & Sanchez-Jankowski, 1998).
Therefore, traditional approaches for coding qualitative data were utilized as the analysis mechanisms for the present study in order to preserve and ensure the researcher’s
contextual interpretations.
Interviews were conducted in Fall 2016 with several key stakeholders in
Lancaster ISD to determine an overall understanding of how the district historically and currently addressed and addresses letter-name knowledge. Therefore, interview data obtained through the interview process was utilized as one of the qualitative data components. The qualitative data acquired during interviews was coded by sorting the illustrative statements of conversants based upon their responses. Appendix E contains a list of the interview questions posed to all conversants. Coding is the process of
analyzing interviewee responses and creating a word to represent categories (Creswell, 2014). Coding specifically takes segments or sentences and labels the categories with a reflective term that often utilizes actual language drawn directly from somewhere amongst the interviewee’s statements and is referred to as an in vivo term (Creswell,
85
2014). The process of coding can be used to both summarize and condense data
(Saldana, 2009). A code captures the content and substance of a datum not dissimilar to the way that a title often captures the essence of a book, movie, or poem (Saldana, 2009). The interviews conducted were transcribed for researcher observation and analysis. Triangulation is the process of ensuring that data is valid; it is the act of being skeptical and delving deeper to validate meaning. In the case of qualitative research, triangulation is checking to ensure that what someone said was interpreted correctly (Stake, 2010). Interviewees were offered transcripts of their interviews but all declined.